If you’ve been working on an iPad, you’re probably already familiar with digital whiteboard apps like Educreations, ShowMe, Doceri, Jot, MolaSync(recently featured by TCEA), and, of course, my favorite, Explain Everything. These apps make presenting for a real audience, online or face to face, or creating something for flipped classroom approach much easier.

We have launched a new iOS collaborative whiteboard, updated the Android, Chrome, and Windows interactive whiteboard, and published a new web-based EE project portal called Explain Everything Discover.

Amazingly, the new app comes with a user community known as Explain Everything Discover (not unlike EduCreations), as well as a subscription plan for education and app.

Unfortunately, Explain Everything Collaborative Whiteboard isn’t available for U.S. yet (I know, I tried to get it!)…”Please note that the Collaborative Whiteboard is first being launched in a few countries: UK, Ireland, Norway, Finland, Sweden, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, China, Japan, Mexico, and Poland. The app will be available worldwide soon after.”

A colleague from the non-profit sector recently posed the following question:

Do you have thoughts about smart boards and their value to classroom education? I saw an impressive demo recently, but wonder about the long term cost versus educational value of the device.Got thoughts ? Share?

My hastily scribbled response:

Thanks for your question. This is a tough question made so by excellent arguments by both adherents and detractors of interactive whiteboards in school. Here are some select perspectives for your review:

As you might guess, these links–for the most part–present an oppositional perspective on IWBs.

My opinion? Folks want to be able to interact with a wall of content. Let’s keep that technology as simple as possible for teachers to learn how to use. The more whiz-bang you throw at teachers, the less likely they are to use it. The more complex the IWB, the MORE training teachers need in how to use it and the less likely they will…you could make a graph of that in fact!

;->

In fact, if you can interact with a wall of content without involving an expensive IWB, then do so. There are various technologies that make that possible. For example, here are some inexpensive IWB alternatives:

Use a Mimeo. These inexpensive devices (a few hundred dollars) are being deployed by colleges and universities as giveaways to new teachers.

Use a Learning Resources nowBoard! ($499) with computer, nowBoard device, and nowBoard wand to turn any surface into an interactive one. Disclaimer: I have to write a review on this device soon for which I’ve received a demo unit to keep.

Again, the cost of these devices must be mitigated by the amount of training teachers have to use them for specific purposes. If they are simply placed in classrooms with cursory training (1-3 hours), then nothing will happen except that the IWB company will get your money…money that would have been better spent on training.

IWBs are a great tool, but they are a tra­di­tional tool. Make no mis­take; there is noth­ing rev­o­lu­tion­ary about what an IWB does for your instruc­tion. IWB sim­ply enforce the anti­quated notions in edu­ca­tion that have always existed, of one or few act­ing while the rest react.

IWBs are a good tool to get stu­dent engage­ment (which we all know is fleet­ing), but they are not inter­ac­tive! Even the best tech­nol­ogy will only allow two points of con­tact upon the board at a time. What are the rest of the stu­dents doing while one or two inter­act with the IWB. This is where my #edchat col­leagues argued that the other stu­dents were brain­storm­ing or doing other activ­i­ties while one or two were using the IWB, and I reply loudly – then what do you need the IWB for?

In these times where pub­lic schools are crunched for money I would argue that an IWB is the last thing that dis­tricts should buy. Although they are some­thing that is easy to take a pic­ture of and put in the paper, they are not rev­o­lu­tion­ary. If any­thing they are hold­ing us back.

Every sin­gle class­room in my school has a smart board because we got a tech­nol­ogy grant from being a fail­ing school. The fact is that tech­nol­ogy is not what is hold­ing my stu­dents back: the lack of qual­ity instruc­tion is.

I really think that rather than tech­nol­ogy schools should be spend­ing much more on hir­ing and train­ing its teach­ing staff: a good teacher will make a les­son far more inter­ac­tive than any smart board ever will.

It all comes back to the teacher doesn’t it? What are they doing to engage their class (with or with­out the IWB). What are they doing that is inno­v­a­tive? How do they help inspire stu­dents to learn­ing? The teach­ers who have mas­tered that can do it with or with­out an IWB. In fact, no mat­ter what tools you give them access to, they will have an engag­ing, rich learn­ing envi­ron­ment. Those who lacked that before the IWB will lack it after the IWB.

A differing perspective from the CEO of Starrmatica, Emily Starr, who asserts teachers need interactive content to use an interactive whiteboard. She then lists several factors that are critical to implementation.

Those factors, although highlighted in my DiigoNotes below, are worth separating out:

You must have teachers willing to accept and learn technology.The word “learn” is a tough one. How much we can learn is limited by a variety of factors…simply, a positive attitude about technology is insufficient. When you consider how much teachers have do for their jobs, “learning” is something that may not rate high enough. Imagine teachers who come home at the end of a long day…how many within any one organization are eager to spend that precious time learning more? Edubloggers are the exception, I’m sure, and life calls us all to cultivate different learning experiences that may be unrelated to technology.

If 70 hours of learning is necessary, then I question whether a 3 hour session is going to make the difference. We really need a graduate level course on interactive whiteboards that will extend learning experiences over a much longer period.

They must be taught how to operate the hardware and navigate the software.It is amazing to watch staff that lack technology experiences. We are now moving beyond the early adopters into the mainstream of teachers and administrators for whom technology is something the lab manager or campus technologist does FOR them. In my experiences, I am pessimistic that teachers will be able to learn and use complex interactive whiteboards that boast MANY features. It involves grafting a whole new set of skills and attitudes onto a different way of being an educator that involves minimal technology use because technology access has been limited, non-functioning.

For example, in an environment where the level of teaching innovation (LOTI) was 0-2, it would be inappropriate to put interactive whiteboards…you’d be better off addressing the perceived lack of access to technology (0), as well as finding ways to make technology use more routine and for more authentic learning practices.

Additionally, they must be instructed on how to create and/or find interactive content.No, I’m sorry, I don’t see this happening. Teachers have plenty to do in places where curriculum scope and sequence is lock-step…it’s hard enough to get them to deviate via high-stakes testing. While we can certainly change expectations, I suspect that CREATE is not a word that describes what teachers are doing now that NCLB has been so entrenched, eliminating individual teacher creativity.

And finally, they must understand how to integrate that content into daily classroom instruction.And, who do we expect will teach them and provide just in time instruction in this? Curriculum staff at the District or campus level?

Ms. Starr’s points fail to take into account the realities of public schools and the culture of the District. Consider this point:

Reforms that strive for educational excellence are likely to fail unless they are meaningfully linked to the school’s unique culture.Source: Shaping School Culture

We continue to impose technology from central office with the idea that we’ll be making a change. The reality is we have to spend the time, effort at the campus level, the classroom level to build the rapport needed to make the reform–in this case, interactive whiteboards–effective.

Do interactive whiteboards in the classroom translate to interactivity with students?

I can relate to the feelings shared in his self described “rant” that interactive whiteboards are a waste of money. I have been regularly dismayed by the amount of funds spent by schools on these expensive pieces of hardware without careful consideration as to how they would be utilized on a practical day to day basis by the classroom teacher to improve student learning. However, I’m not willing to generalize that because of poor implementations that interactive whiteboards are useless and that those using them ineffectively can not learn to do otherwise.

I have been shouting from the rooftops for the past five years that an interactive whiteboard is just a piece of hardware without a teacher who knows how to use it effectively and interactive content that engages students. This is the case with any piece of electronic hardware—computers, ipods, phones, televisions. Supplying the hardware is only the beginning. For successful technology integration, you must have three factors: Hardware + Knowledgeable Teacher + Quality Content

You must have teachers willing to accept and learn technology.

They must be taught how to operate the hardware and navigate the software.

Additionally, they must be instructed on how to create and/or find interactive content.

And finally, they must understand how to integrate that content into daily classroom instruction.

read the report that 88% of teachers would use their interactive whiteboards more often if provided with more content.

Interactive whiteboards are pieces of hardware that require content to be effective.

Interactive content allowed me to present problems to my students and have them test their answers with virtual manipulatives. It allowed my students to learn new information from sources other than their teacher or their textbook. And it allowed us to practice rote mathematical operations in a more motivating way with my students responding to questions by writing on dry erase marker boards because they all wanted to be chosen to answer via the wireless mouse. At the same time, I was free to roam the classroom, consult with small groups, and monitor individual learning.

If ANY of the factors that you list are overlooked, whiteboard efforts fail. What are the chances that every factor is implemented successfully in every classroom and every school dumping thousands into whiteboard programs?

And more importantly, what are the tangible benefits for districts who somehow fight through your entire list of factors successfully? How does instruction change? What makes whiteboards a better investment than netbooks?

Shouldn’t we focus our efforts on technology integration efforts that are less complex?

Although my first reaction (many years ago) to interactive white boards in schools was positive, I came to realize through various experiences that the teacher is the key in the implementation of any new technology…and that imposing solutions from central office can sometimes have a deleterious effect on quality of implementation.

It is a hard lesson to learn, even when learned, hard to convey to others who are captured by the desire to quickly improve classroom instruction. ETalbert cites research to support the point that the teacher is the key, that 70 hours of professional learning is needed for them to become effective. If so, it means we need teachers to be obsessed with learning and using new technologies amidst the myriad duties they have. Will it happen?

” … it seems that a key finding is being ignored: “Such a carefully designed rollout, featuring extensive professional development and ongoing support services, does not always occur when districts decide to put the whiteboards in classrooms, critics say.” This correlates strongly with the research findings in “Professional Learning in the Learning Profession” (http://www.srnleads.org/resources/publications/pdf/nsdc_profdev_short_report.pdf) that job embedded, long term, intensive professional development (70 hours or more) is needed to support significant change in teacher practice.

The thing that makes Interactive Whiteboards work, when they work, is a teacher who is willing and able to support collaboration and interaction. What people forget is that at the heart of teaching is a teacher, and these are not interchangeable parts (see The Widget Effect: http://widgeteffect.org/). I would so much rather districts invested in teacher development than expensive widgets. Treat the widgets like interchangeable widgets and strong teachers like the irreplaceable human capital that they are. “